Thread 718991310

Bfags be like Hula hoop lol

>>718991310 (OP)
>Tranime gacha tards are also b-fags

if it was A then the piston decelerated. if it doesn't, then B. there, it's that easy.

it would be b because portal is a game and flinging shit fast is more fun

>>718991310 (OP)
>A
>plap
A

webm related is how it would work on the game logic if moving portals were coded properly (the only moving portal in the games ever present is not accessible to the player)

>b-but in real life the frame of refer-
Shut the fuck up. Portals don't exist in real life and the "frame of reference" argument doesn't work because the existence of two portals at different velocities requires the "frame of reference" of both portals to be simultaneously true, which obviously doesn't work. The games are explicit about the only frame of reference mattering is that of the object being portalled, not the portals themselves.

Just build a portal and do a practical experiment already, faggot.

>>718991310 (OP)
Afriends were so on the ropes last thread they were reduced to
>I don't CARE if the physics say it's B
>I don't CARE if the devs say it's B
>It's technically A in the games because of engine limitations
And when it was pointed out to them that that also wasn't even true they resorted to
>Well they probably just prevented the cube from going through on purpose because otherwise it might've showed it to be A but they wanted B

The fsct thst thid arguement has been going for 20 years just want to sleeps you Fuc

not a hoop
not a door
not a window
the entrance is moving relative to the exit

>>718994067
>webm related is how it would work on the game logic
Nah
>The games are explicit about the only frame of reference mattering is that of the object being portalled, not the portals themselves.
If you're talking about "speedy thing in, speedy thing out" - speed is inherently relative, and that's where frames of reference come in. The cube is speedy relative to the portal in *any* frame of reference, and also when it comes out of the blue portal it is speedy relative to the Earth. These are plain, observable facts, that cannot logically be otherwise, and if you rely on flawed rules of thumb to deny what's right in front of you, you're putting the cart before the horse.

There is nothing in the games that suggests it could not be B but there is evidence that suggests it can't be A - and that makes sense because it can't actually be A, logically speaking.

>>718994067
>the existence of two portals at different velocities requires the "frame of reference" of both portals to be simultaneously true
Why?

>>718994067
truvk

>>718991310 (OP)
The issue with B fags is that their entire argument is "b-but it would be weird if it worked like this!!" when the entire premise of portals is that they are supposed to works entirely as they are presented by the game logic, and thus their weird behavior should be accepted as an axiom.

>>718994512
Anon... the game logic also says B

>>718994605
nuh uh

>>718994446
Well, he's right and also wrong. A "frame of reference" is not a truth, it's an arbitrary construct we use to measure things by. Portals inherently make it so that two otherwise incompatible measurements are true at the same time - one through the portal, and one via the normal way. They do this even without moving: they make it so the shortest path between two points can be two different things.

But it's still important to keep in mind that one of them is only correct when you go through the portal, and one of them is only correct if you don't go through the portal. So it is with the A or B thing. The cube is stationary, if it doesn't go through the portal. The cube is in motion, when measured through the portal. If it doesn't go through the portal, the measurement through the portal isn't relevant. If it does go through, the measurement outside the portal isn't relevant.

>>718993020
ummmm Bsissies, how do we come back from this????

>>718994770
Yuh uh

Sub-90:
>It's A because the cube is stationary and muh conservation of momentum
90-110:
>It's B because the part of the cube that's still coming out would push the part of the cube that has already come out
110-130:
>It's B because the cube is in motion relative to the portal, which means it's in motion relative to the Earth as it emerges from the blue portal
130-150:
>It's B because motion is entirely relative and the cube is in motion within some frame of reference; portals merely translate motion from one frame of reference to another, and B is therefore literally just the same thing we already do in the games
150+:
>It's B because that would be more fun in a video game and allow the devs to construct new types of puzzles

You can't fuck a portal if it's B.
Therefore, it MUST be A.

>>718994968
>You can't fuck a portal if it's B.
Of course you can. Your cock doesn't have enough mass to pull itself off

>>718991310 (OP)
Why do Afags not understand the conservation of momentum? Does the A stand for African?

>>718995109
What momentum? The object is displaced in space time, not moved.

>>718994798
The cube is never in motion. Portals reduce the space between two points to zero. The movement of a portal isn't the movement of matter, it's the movement of different co-ordinate reference points. Portals are not things. They don't interact with matter, they don't contain energy or mass and they don't transfer it either.

>>718995149
>Space time
Doesn't real, dumbass.

The fact that the cube emerges from the exit portal, unavoidably means that the cube is moving relative to it at the speed of the piston. The cube has mass and velocity, and there is no reason to assume it would magically lose them after fully emerging.
A-fags are troglodytes who can't imagine objects in motion, and thus can't wrap their minds around this concept.

>>718994954
I didn't take into account all the cope about warping space around the cube and whatnot, it goes without saying that these are not indicative of a great intellect either

I realized in the previous thread that a good chuck of people who argue against B actually think that B works like how they describe A without the schizo logic that makes A half make sense. Keep this in mind if you see someone saying that Portals working like B would cause things to be torn apart or think that the answers have been flipped. They reach this conclusion because they will take something like the moon scene and assume B means that you would come out at the speed of the earth and then have to hope your body can hold together. I'm pretty sure things like >>718993020 also come from this mistake in logic.

The point is, you should verify what someone is arguing for and against before getting too deep into an argument. You may end up wasting your time arguing with someone who who both supports and argues against A without realizing it.

Speedy thing goes in
speedy thing comes out
thing is not speedy going in
therefore not speedy going out

there I solved it, you can thank me later

>>718995198
>The cube has mass and velocity, and there is no reason to assume it would magically lose them after fully emerging.
Yeah so when the hula hoop goes over the cube the cube OBVIOUSLY has velocity otherwise how would it pass through the other side of the hula hoop??????

>>718994798
Looking through a portal is not a valid frame of reference so you can't make measurements based on that.
An object does not enter your frame of reference UNTIL it has passed the portal. If you reach out to touch it then your arm is in a different frame of reference on the other side.
This is why you can have objects looking like they're speeding towards you then apparently stopping with no inertia, because you're looking at something not bound to your local rules of physics.

>>718995163
Every sentence in this post is false, congratulations.

>>718995149
>It's yet fucking another Afags try to describe movement with every word in the dictionary except movement episode
Can you NIGGERS try to be even slightly original for once in your lives?

wonder what is correlation between crippling student debt and falling for B

>>718995163
>The cube is never in motion.
It absolutely, measurably is.
>Portals are not things. They don't interact with matter
And that is why the cube keeps moving, no force having acted upon it.
I don't know why that's so hard to accept, you do the same thing in the game. The cube goes through the portal and WHOA! Instantaneously completely reverses its momentum. Except when measured through the portal, then it's a continuous path. And if we measure through the portal, the cube is *always* in motion.

>>718995259
>Every sentence in this post is false, congratulations.
Nice argument b-brain

>>718995175
But it do.

>>718995283
Because it doesn't move through space time, it's displaced. They aren't the same thing.

>>718995256
Wormholes are not hula hoops though. Try again.

>>718995302
>absolutely, measurably is.
Measure it then
>And that is why the cube keeps moving, no force having acted upon it.
The cube never moves
>The cube goes through the portal and WHOA! Instantaneously completely reverses its momentum
This doesn't happen

Afags are flat earthers that can't tell you how they would've felt if they didn't have breakfast yesterday.

>>718995259
>Looking through a portal is not a valid frame of reference
It absolutely is. In fact, it is the more relevant one.
>An object does not enter your frame of reference UNTIL it has passed the portal
At which exact point it will be in motion, yes.
Although it is inaccurate to speak of an object "entering your frame of reference"; again, this is only an arbitrary measurement.
>This is why you can have objects looking like they're speeding towards you then apparently stopping with no inertia, because you're looking at something not bound to your local rules of physics.
This much is true, but we're interested in precisely what happens when the cube is on your side of the portal

>>718995387
Can you push an object on the other side of a portal with an object you're putting through it? Should be easy to test even in the games.

>>718995393
They are actually, wormholes don't care about frames of reference or whatever cope you come up with either

>>718995438
On the contrary, b-brains imagine some magic force sucking things into the portal

uhh uma musume?

>>718995424
>Measure it then
Okay. Hold a tape measurer by the blue portal, hold a stopwatch, and have a camera record it. You will see first 1 cm of cube, then some time later 2 cm, etc. Distance over time.
>This doesn't happen
LITERALLY what happens during basic fucking gameplay, it's what the game is built around you twat

>>718994605
>the game logic also says B
it was literally tested in-game and it works like A

>>718995393
In the game yes they are. cope.

>>718995587
>Okay. Hold a tape measurer by the blue portal, hold a stopwatch, and have a camera record it.
Hold a tape measure by the hula hoop, hold a stopwatch, and have a camera attached to the hula hoop to record it

What happens to the air when the piston portal moves?

>>718995587
>LITERALLY what happens during basic fucking gameplay, it's what the game is built around you twat
B-brains literally don't know portals work even in the actual game
Jesus Christ lmao

>>718995387
>it doesn't move
>it just *moves*

I've never seen a hula hoop where one end moves independently from the other.

>>718995732
>Being at two different places at once = moving
The eternal b fag, everyone

>>718995485
>>718995647
Show me an example where the "entrance" and "exit" of a hula hoop move realative to each other while retaining zero distance. The portals in the example are doing this. A regular hula hoop can't replicate it.

>>718995750
I've never seen holes that magically suck things in either, except your dad's asshole

>>718995846
>The portals in the example are doing this. A regular hula hoop can't replicate it.
Now use your imagination to extrapolate that behaviour to this situation

Or should I ask you about breakfast instead?

>>718995484
Yes.
>I'm right then!!!
I don't even know what your point is since you haven't stated what said test is supposed to prove.
I will state that there is no relation between your supposed test and the idea that the cube would have momentum by virtue of passing through it. The cube is displaced, and as a consequence of it occupying more space, it pushes objects out from around it, like a rock displacing surrounding water when dropped in a puddle.

>>718995732
I'll move my fist up your ass in a second

>>718995815
>portals can't impart momentum
>they can just create matter out of nothing though

Afags can't imagine a hypothetical situation they haven't personally experienced, they are the kind of "people" that can't play video games or watch movies without a "relatable" character.

>>718995732
Afags can't picture motion in their heads. They see one image where the cube is at rest, and anther one where it is also at rest and that's all they need. They are unable to comprehend that there is a middle stage where the cube needs to be moving.

>>718995980
>Create matter
You're trolling

This argument is not about Portal portals, because this scenario cannot be played out in the game without modifying content.

Therefore, this is not videogames and all you retards need to take this to /sci/

>>718995620
What is the point of posting something that is easily proven false that everyone in the thread probably already knows about?

>>718995815
The cube also moves out and away from the portal. It is not at those two places anymore.

>>718995478
>this much is true, but we're interested in precisely what happens when the cube is on your side of the portal
You're disagreeing with yourself. Before the cube passes the portal you can only speculate how it will behave. It is not in your frame of reference, it's like watching something on a screen. It can behave in a physically impossible (for you) way.

>>718996000
>If I look at it from the hula hoops perspective everything is moving!!!!
Hahahahahaha

>>718995949
That's two hoops and the distance between them changes in the middle image.

>>718991310 (OP)
The force from B comes from the idea that the whole universe is what's moving and pushing Agnes from the perspective of the exit portal.

>>718996003
one singular object cannot be in two places at the same moment in time
either the one object has moved between the two spaces or the portal has magically constructed a completely identical object in the final resting position
And since the latter thought is retarded its the first one because portals clearly impart momentum or else the game fundamentally wouldn't work

>>718996008
>The cube also moves out and away from the portal.
Because of gravity on the other side, you fucking portal-thread freshman

>>718995902
So a stone dropped into water doesn't move it?

>>718996097
>one singular object cannot be in two places at the same moment in time
They can with portals you fucking idiot

>>718996126
>gravity pulls sideways

>>718996043
The cube emerges from the exit portal at the same rate it is engulfed by the entrance portal. It moves as it emerges and will continue to move after it has fully emerged as there is no force stopping it.

>>718996173
>What is a slope

>>718995712
No, Anon, this is precisely how the game works. You don't realise it because you don't know what *momentum* is.

Open the game. Place two portals on the floor, side by side. Drop a cube into one of them. It falls down and then immediately shoots up. Relative to you, and to the Earth, this represents an instantaneous reversal of momentum - it went one direction and then the opposite, without any forces acting on it! But, of course, to the portal and to the cube itself, it followed a continuous path, and momentum was conserved.

That's how portals work. Continuous motion through the portal = change in momentum relative to things outside the portal. And that is precisely what B says would happen. But A instead says that the motion through the portal should be interrupted so that the measurement relative to the Earth remains consistent. Which is just a complete failure to conceptualise what portals do, based on a flawed understanding of momentum, and an inability to realise that you've already been intuitively breaking physics all along in the game without a care in the world.

Portal makes it look so simple, that you don't even see what's happening.

>>718996126
Prove to me that you actually believe this. Show how gravity would move the cube out of the portal before I will bother responding to bait.

>>718996196
>. It moves as it emerges and will continue to move after it has fully emerged as there is no force stopping it.
It's not moving, the space between the two points is disappearing at a certain rate. Unless you can prove that removing space gives objects momentum, it's time to give up

>>718996006
It looks the same on /sci/ except their Afags use more jargon to obscure the fact that they are, essentially, still making a hula hoop argument, and they're more smug about it

>>718996165
I said like, not is. If it makes it any easier to understand, imagine the rock just appearing suddenly in the middle of a pond. What would happen to the water?

>>718991310 (OP)
>this silences the bfag

>>718996263
Source on this nonsense? Also explain the moon scene from portal 2.

>>718996286
But things don't appear suddenly out of portals. They emerge at the speed they entered the portal.
Also could you maybe elaborate what physical property is necessary to push something?

>>718996037
>You're disagreeing with yourself.
No I'm not
>Before the cube passes the portal you can only speculate how it will behave.
It will always behave consistent with the observed motion. Because that is necessarily its actual motion when it arrives on my side.
>It can behave in a physically impossible (for you) way.
On the other side, yes; and on this side it will behave in a way that the other side might consider physically impossible.

>>718996307
What the fuck is this pic supposed to show? Are afags really this disconnected from reality?

>>718996420
you're a retard if you can't understand the implication

>>718996307
It's gibberish

>>718996375
>It will always behave consistent with the observed motion.
No it won't. Take the A/B problem but the piston stops just above the cube. Why doesn't it shoot up at you?

>On the other side, yes; and on this side it will behave in a way that the other side might consider physically impossible.

This is called different frames of reference.

>>718996263
>It's not moving, the space between the two points is disappearing at a certain rate.
lmao, add that one to the list of synonyms of movement Afags use to avoid saying movement

>>718996482
i'll give you a hint
think of the stop sign as the platform on which the cube is resting on the original image
then use your thinky thinky parts to extrapolate the rest

>>718996445
Nah, the others are right. It is gibberish. Complete schizobabble. The Cow Tools of portal diagrams.

>>718996216
>Continuous motion through the portal = change in momentum relative to things outside the portal.
No, you fucking imbecile, this is not a rule and this is not how portals work. Portals work by reducing the space between 2 points to zero. An object at rest (velocity = 0) has zero momentum, regardless of its mass. The cube is at rest. Reducing the space between it and another point does not give it energy.

>>718996530
low IQ

>>718996445
Articulate it please? I'm in the mood for some schizobabble.

>>718996332
>Also explain the moon scene from portal 2.
It's exactly explained by what I just said you idiot

>>718996483
>Why doesn't it shoot up at you?
Because it didn't go through the portal
>This is called different frames of reference.
Again, not really, though if it helps you to conceptualise it like that, be my guest.
So then you realise that as soon as a single molecule of cube has crossed the portal's boundary, that molecule is now within my "frame of reference", according to which it was in motion?

>>718996573
You're in the right thread, we have several Afags in here.

>>718996559
You keep repeating it but there's nothing in the games that would support it and you don't present any arguments either.

>>718996568
Yes, good one.
It is gibberish. Complete schizobabble. The Cow Tools of portal diagrams. Low IQ. Any more additions?

>>718996008
>What is the point of posting something that is easily proven false that everyone in the thread probably already knows about?
Make the cube jump a little or something. This game bug was bypassed by people who demonstrated that, in fact, the game does work like A.

>>718996332
Ever heard of a fucking vacuum? Pressure difference, delta P?

>>718996618
There's nothing in the games that supports b either

>>718996573
Top left panel represent the B scenario. It's "muh relativity" concept that Bfags love to babble about.
They think the speed of the portal going towards the cube can be "mirrored" into being the speed of the cube going toward the portal simply by changing the frame of reference. So the cube flies out in B, because
>it totally had velocity all along bro, relative to the portal that is
again, look at the stop sign and compare it to the platform on the original meme picture. If you can't understand the meaning... give it more time

>>718996057
>more simple

>>718996624
I don't get it, is this supposed to be pro-A, or intended to show that A is retarded and goes against everything we know about portals, which is what it does?

>>718996559
I'd love to hear your take on what happens to the air displaced by the cube?

>>718996605
Yes, the molecule that entered your frame of reference is in your frame of reference.

>>718996681
We could refer to the Moon scene again but the real galaxy brain take is: every single portal interaction already proves B

>>718996730
What happens to the air when a hula hoop goes around you?

>>718996668
In other words, it doesn't actually work in the game since the game was never programmed for this to be able to happen.

>>718996735
And moving.

>>718994067
>if moving portals were coded properly
how are portals coded anyway? has valve ever released the source code?

id imagine the game detects if an object is clipping through portal A and makes a clone clipping out of portal B with the same velocity/angle

>>718996774
If galaxy brain means "I'm too scared to make an argument"

>>718996691
As far as I can tell you're arguing that a rocket ship can't pass a stop sign in space but will be immediately halted in its tracks

>>718996708
>That's not how portals work
Oh okay, how do portals transport matter from X coordinates in space time to Y coordinates?

>>718996820
Yes, how else would it emerge from the portal?

>>718994954
Post your MENSA certification right now

>>718996882
They don't transmit matter, why can't bfags get this lmao

>>718996852
No, I just know it's beyond you.

>>718996694
One of the conditions was the ends moving in relation to one another. That one is still missing.

>>718996923
Brrrrk brrrk brrrrrrrrrawwkk!

>>718996882
Certainly not through spaghettification
>>718996901
So we agree, it's B
>>718996919
"IQ is for losers" - Stephen Hawking
>>718996921
What the fuck do you think they do

>>718996971
Polly want a cracker?
Can you say "hula hoop"?

>>718996979
>What the fuck do you think they do
Holy shit
So when you play the game and you notice that the portal is connecting 2 places together, you actually think what it does is teleport things from one to another like star trek?

>>718997046
Brrrrrrrrrrrrrkkkkkkk brrrrk brrrrrk!

Ajeets think that trains can't hurt them if it hits them as there are people on the train who aren't getting splattered.

>>718996880
you're looking at it wrong
What is the B argument? That the velocity X of the portal moving thanks to the piston (also moving at velocity X) is just the inverse (vectorially speaking) of the velocity of the cube on the platform moving towards the portal. So, the cube is going to shoot out of the portal at velocity -X, because that's the vector it originally had due to the "relativity" and "frame of reference" line of thought.
Thing is, in the spaceship analogy, if you think of the spaceship as the portal/piston, this only happens if the ship is actually allowed to pass PAST the portal...
What does happen, instead, if the ship stops dead in its track? What is its velocity from the frame of reference of the cube? What is the cube's velocity from its frame of reference?
I literally can't make it any simpler than this without bringing the two images to a kindergarten class
>>718996307

>>718994954
B fags are the biggest midwits

>>718991310 (OP)
I'm surprised you folks didn't push this meme unto Japanese 2ch.
It'd be funny to see them talk about this for a decade.

>>718996979
>So we agree, it's B
Did you confuse me with someone else?

>>718997115
What force causes the cube to stop? You can't invent a fictional one.

>>718997210
cause japan dont play PC games
Personal Computer and internet were illegal until reiwa era cause they think it promoted communism or something

>>718996921
So you're just a retard.

>>718996979
>It's not this
You haven't answered how they work. How do they work then. Enlighten me.

>>718996931
They don't move in relation to each other for the purposes of objects entering the portal. That's the point. it doesn't matter if they're both moving, one is, or both are "stationary", the end result is the same.

>>718996815
There's functionally no difference between the cube being stationary and the portal ramming into it, vs the cube slightly moving upwards and the portal ramming into it. The point is still to prove if the velocity of the incoming portal would affect the cube's velocity. And, according to the game code, it would not.

>>718997258
They use steam now, don't they? And Portal is somewhat known there.
They even had HL2 arcade machine back in 2004-5.

Poll on the A and B crowd, pls answer.
https://strawpoll.com/e6Z2AB5XGgN

Why do afriends always make these convoluted yet nonsensical charts and long winded arguments? With b you just kinda know it's right because it feels better and therefore I don't really think there's any point in arguing for it. If afriends genuinely believed and trusted their supposed certainty they wouldn't have to wake up in the middle of the night cursing bfolks.

>>718997264
>They don't move in relation to each other for the purposes of objects entering the portal. That's the point. it doesn't matter if they're both moving, one is, or both are "stationary", the end result is the same.

We are at the core of the problem here. In the op image, one end is at rest relative to the earth while the other is zooming down and engulfing the cube. This is extremely relevant and your inability to comprehend why is the reason you are an afag. Please draw a version of your sphagetti image where the cube doesn't levitate into the orange portal, but instead the orange portal lowers down into it, while the blue portal remains where it is. Do not leave out the middle image.

>>718997253
lmao
lol even

Me? I'm a Bnius.

There must be a radical centrist option C that will no doubt satisfy A and B fags with its superiority.
C is the answer.

>>718997052
>like star trek
No, not like Star Trek. But they factually do transfer matter from one place to another, as evidenced by the matter first being in one place and then another
If it worked like Star Trek you might have a case for A btw

>>718997115
Okay, well, of all the flawed assumptions on display here, I'm going to address the glaring one: the cube does move past the portal.

>>718997603
The only way for moving portals to exist without breaking reality at its core is by assuming there's an universal frame of reference they abide to
Once you make that assumption, then A requires less steps to be explained compared to B

>>718997581
What is the hand equivalent in the op image?

>>718997135
Yes, midwits and above; A is only found on the left side of the bell curve

>>718997663
only to the extent of its own bounds (length). Which is why in the spaceship analogy, the stop sign is at the very end of the cube
Think of the nose of the spaceship as the portal

>>718997219
No. We agree the cube is moving when it comes out of the portal. That's B.

>>718997707
yeah bfags are all rightwingers

>>718995163
>The cube is never in motion.
Everything is in motion all the time, because motion is relative. If it looks like the cube is sitting still it's because it's moving in the same direction as its surroundings. This may sound like nitpicking but it's actually crucial.

>>718997670
the piston

>>718997752
But I never argued it wasn't.

>>718997264
>You haven't answered how they work. How do they work then.
No, you assert it's spaghettification, so you show me spaghettification in the games. You don't get to let your unfounded assumption stand until I give you another one.

Hello friends, what would happen in this scenario?

>>718996815
There's another webm out there that instead of using a cube uses the player character to demonstrate, and it works like A.

>>718997873
200 m/s exit

>>718997873
+100 -100 = 0. Basically the exit portal would drop him off at 0 m/s.

>>718997759
Actually I'm a communist

>>718997937
wait no, the portal is the wrong direction. Disregard this

>>718997818
Then why do you deny that we agree?

>>718997665
Are you dumb ? They break SR (not reality) by allowing FTL travel, nothing can be done about it.

>>718997115
The argument for B uses relies on relativity.

>>718997748
So you're arguing that the rocket "scoops up" the cube by the stop sign
Now imagine what would happen instead if the cube wasn't attached to the stop sign

>>718997665
B needs no additional assumptions outside the ones implied by the scenario itself. B is a direct consequance of a scenario where wormholes can move relative to one another. A requires you to invent additional rules.
Some Atards seem to have this idea that you need to come up with additional rules to fix the scenario to prevent outcomes that can't be replicated in our reality.
We should assume B to be true because the rules given by the scenario result in B without us making further assumptions. For the same reason we should assume that the portals can be used to create a perpetual motion machine, instead of inventing new rules that would prevent this.

>>718997665
>The only way for moving portals to exist without breaking reality at its core is by breaking reality at its core

>>718997814
That doesn't work

>>718997873
Gory end he'd prolly be cut in half since the body wouldn't have time to fully drop out of the portal's radius
Non gory he'd just drop down.

>>718998070
But perpetual motion machines break the laws of physics? Something would stop them from working with portals.

>>718998115
Is that you Rincewind?

>>718996097
>one singular object cannot be in two places at the same moment in time
I hope for your sake that this is bait and not what you actually believe is occurring.

alright let this Achad enlightenment you, the area on both sides of the portals is not seperated at all but isconnected as if right next to each other since space is bent/modified in such a way by the portal. if you put your hand through it then there would be no distance between the part that is on your side of the portal and the part that is on the other side, these areas are one continuous space due to the portal.

>>718997665
>assuming there's an universal frame of reference they abide to
Which is a completely fine assumption to make. We exist within the universe, so we cannot do anything but assume what lies beyond it. Similar to how a 2D living being would only be able to assume that the 3rd dimension exists.
There are just some things you can't prove with science no matter how hard you try. We are not Gods.
This is just a fantasy game after all, not real science.

>>718997873
In an abstract world he would just be stuck in the middle. Identical to what happens to you in the game when both portals are on the floor, you're just there permanently in the hole.
In the "real world" he would probably get torn apart by being dragged into ground from both sides, since there would also be gravity pulling him towards the ground and friction grating his body starting with his legs. 100 m/s would be enough to do lethal damage after only a few seconds.

>>718998156
>>718998213
I forgot to mention he's floating in space.

>>718998070
>B needs no additional assumptions
Then why are Bfags continuously making disingenuous "other scenario"
A just simply states cube goes in, cube comes out, no relativity bullshit.

The reason it's B is because there's no way to decide what is moving and which isn't
Objects in our universe don't have a speed property assigned to them. Everything is its own inertial frame of reference.

This is a really weird uma thread

>>718998248
>Then why are Bfags continuously making disingenuous "other scenario"
To show that it works

>>718998173
Here we have the fundamental difference on display:
Bchads:
>If portals lead to breaking reality, then they will break reality
Avirgins:
>If portals lead to breaking reality, we must alter the portals

>>718998313
Every single other stupid scenario B comes up with is disingenuous and changes the variables to "prove" the original scenario is also B
You Bfags are subhuman.

>>718998248
>A just simply states cube goes in, cube comes out
A also implies that there's some force that arrests the cube as it has fully moved out of the exit portal. This is never addressed.

>>718998368
That's rich, coming from someone who can't tell me what it would be like if he didn't have breakfast this morning

>>718998368
>my contrived explanation works exclusively with one singular presented scenario
>WAIT WHY ARE YOU EXTRAPOLATING YOUR SOLUTION TO MULTIPLE SCENARIOS YOU CAN'T DO THAT
Afags

>>718996694
the area in the middle doesn't exist though it goes straight from orange to blue with zero distance in-between

>>718997876
Here you go.
The narrative in the webm is that it should make Chell move even further, but the actual reason is that the game is coded so that if the player is not moving, a portal won't work. (i.e. for a player to move through a portal, they have to be falling or running into it - this is why the test can't be done with the cube itself - the piston just stops)

hmm

>>718998453
>doesnt portal the box, only his player model which probably weighs 10 times as much

>>718998070
Portals are not wormholes.

>>718998173
Why should we assume the laws of physics to be self mending? We have a hypotetical scenario with elements that violate our current undrstanding of physics. The question is, in what way does this new broken reality work, not what new rules of nature would emmerge to mend this broken mess to work like our reality?

>>718998378
No it doesn't. BFags refuse to accept relativity is not at fucking play.
Cube isn't moving. Cube goes in portal because portal is moving. Cube comes out not moving except for plopping down
That's it.
That's the scenario
All common sense points to it
Most physics theories point to it except the ONE model Bfags cling to
Cope and seethe about it.
>>718998396
I'd probably be hungry though I tend to handle that pretty decently. How about you anon? Do you need to always eat something in the morning? That usually varies by person you know. Some people are fine with just a coffee and milk. Other need a nice full breakfast. Others skip breakfast entirely (though that isn't good for them to be fair)
What do YOU usually do?
>>718998436
>if I change the variables of a scenario it has a different outcome?! IMPOSSIBLE
Subhuman.

>>718998524
You have just confirmed that you haven't played portal, let alone read the post which explains WHY the player goes in instead of the box. The game is explicit that the companion cube weighs exactly as much as Chell.
Glados even makes fun of Chell for being a fatty because of it.

>>718998506
ayy lmao

It's both

>>718998626
ive played through both games multiple times, just not a lore fag that reads fanfic in their spare time
also not true

>>718998537
What is a wormhole then, and how do portals differ from them?

>>718998524
Weight doesn't matter to the problem; the real reason it's disingenuous is because the "hop" disguises the fact that the engine fundamentally doesn't handle this scenario

>>718998598
>BFags refuse to accept relativity is not at fucking play.
Motion is relative. That's what you refuse to accept. You can repeat "the cube is stationary" until you're blue in the face but the fact is, it's objectively in motion relative to the portal - and thus, Earth

>>718998506
CIA hacked the poll to make us (A)lphas look bad o algo

>>718998598
>What do YOU usually do?
>Doesn't understand the purpose of the hypothetical
Yup, that tracks

>>718998060
it's been explained numerous times that moving portals are paradoxical in nature, and cannot exist unless you assume an UFR exists as well

>>718998067
no... I'm arguing that the spaceship stopping and the portal+piston stopping are analogous
Once you make that analogy, B scenario cannot happen (with the cube jumping out of the portal at X velocity) in the OG image

It's unfair, I have to leave and meet my girlfriend, but Afags can argue all day because they don't have girlfriends

>OP tries to make an Uru thread
>Keyword tries
>it attracts the wrong crowd, and now /v/ talks about a double decade old question.
Anyway the answer is C, the game crashes because you alt tabbed while waiting for the portal to move.

>>718998850
>no... I'm arguing that the spaceship stopping and the portal+piston stopping are analogous
Well

You're wrong there

>>718998854
Bruh you are literally the ones always going "wtf you can't just change the scenario in any way, that's completely different!"

>>718998741
>Motion is relative.
refer to
>>718997115
>>718996307

>>718998670
>look at my disingenuous example that is totally the same thing!
Just a fucking food analogy at this point.
>>718998741
>motion is relative
In the model you choose to apply and that's discussing real world physics which DOESN'T APPLY TO A FUCKING VIDEO GAME
See
>>718998453
And cope.

>>718998926
>You're wrong there
feel free to make an argument... any time

>>718998797
UFR would require you to to give portals the ability to alter momentum all the same.

I don't think A fags can imagine 2 inertial frames moving independently from another

Answer is always A

>>718991310 (OP)
>>718993020
A because it's the frame (portal) that is moving and not the object. It's the same as dropping a wooden frame onto something smaller on the floor.
>>718994067
This webm is correct.

>>718994338
>speed is inherently relative
Relatively speaking you sniff my penis right now as I type this

>>718998854
thats a felatious argument

>>718997548
>This is extremely relevant
It isn't.

>Please draw a version of your sphagetti image where the cube doesn't levitate into the orange portal
k done

>>718997819
>No, you assert it's spaghettification
It's that, or some other way of drawing space with 0 distance which I can't draw.

>You don't get to let your unfounded assumption stand until I give you another one.
Then I don't need to listen to you.

>only one picture with penises
COme on now, boring thread

>>718999162
Go to one of the gay boards if you care to see dicks.

>>718999032
What force?

>>718998245
He would have a painful death in less than 2 minutes. He would be stuck in the middle of the two portals for a while, until at some point he either gets pulled by the gravity of a large object in space or the portal crashes him into space debris or a large object.

>>718998453
The game code is using the velocities of objects based on the global point of reference. No matter how fast a portal moves, the cube and Chell have a velocity of 0.
The portals would work like this irl if there really does exist a global point of reference for the universe and all existence. Which we can only fantasize about proving.

>>718999116
It still levitates into the orange portal

>>718991310 (OP)
>/v/ can't into Newton's Law of Inertia
If you think it's B you're brown

>>718997548
>>718999116
>>718999343
Sorry, just realized you'd whine about them being not lined up, here you go. I even labelled it for you!

>>718999162
I knew I was forgetting something

>>718999306
The portals would work like this irl if there really does exist a global point of reference for the universe and all existence
It's actually more complex than that. You would need a universe where there is an universal point of reference for speed, but not momentum or velocity. As an object is passing through a portal, different parts of it would be moving in different directions relative to an universal point of reference.

What I wanna know is why Bfags even are applying relativity to the example
It's a goddamn cube about the size of a person. Why the fuck would you bust out relativity for that. You use classic mechanics for that shit.

>>718999306
>He would have a painful death in less than 2 minutes. He would be stuck in the middle of the two portals for a while, until at some point he either gets pulled by the gravity of a large object in space or the portal crashes him into space debris or a large object.
If the portal panels continue to move, wouldn't that intrinsically mean that he's simultaneously moving at 100m/s and -100m/s at the same time?
Or if he gets crushed, that would also imply a force is applied to him that wasn't there in the first place.
Either way, something's moving.

>>718999535
Notice how the cube moves between the middle and end image? I'm not talking about "moving" between the portals, but the actual movement experienced by the cube after emerging from the blue portal. For the cube to move like that, it must have velocity. It has velocity and mass, therefore it has momentum. There is no force counteracting this momentum, so the cube will keep going at the same speed as it was engulfed by the orange portal.
Inventing a new force to counteract the momentum would mean that scenario A fails due to occams razor.

>>718999246
i think a harder pill to swallow from B fags like myself;
the "force exerted on the cube" is less impressive than the force moving an entire second universe

>>718991310 (OP)
everyone knows its B and is just shitposting, right?

>>718999957
kill yourself B-tard

>>718999735
The portals themselves are moving 100 m/s. What do you think happens when the left portal crashes the man into an asteroid?
He's standing still, things are rushing into him at 100 m/s from both directions.

>>718999850
>Notice how the cube moves
Nope. As was noted, the cube is completely stationary. Please re-refer to the posted image.

>the actual movement experienced by the cube
None. Again, refer to the image.

>For the cube to move
It doesn't.

>it must have velocity
It has no velocity. Above.

Seeing as the rest of your post is predicated on false assumptions, it's irrelevant.

>>718999850
You know what momentum is, anon? It's a vector.
You know what's special about vectors? They have both magnitude AND direction.
Do you know how you change direction? You have to apply a force.
But do you know what portals can do in the Portal games? They can change your direction, and by extension, your momentum.

>>718999859
There is no pill to swallow. Both A and B take place in an universe that is moving relative to itself at the speed of the piston. The paradox is baked into the initial assumptions.

Bfags be like "the laws of relativity get to violate the laws of thermodynamics"

>>719000054
the cube moved dipshit, ergo not stationary.

>>718999986
>What do you think happens when the left portal crashes the man into an asteroid?
To be honest I think he exits the orange portal at 200m/s.
But if you believe that doesn't happen, and that he MUST remain at 0m/s, I'm interested in seeing how you would visualize the scenario.

>>719000213
Yes?
I mean you get to do that in the base game any time you create a portal set with a height difference or, god forbid, and infinitely falling portal setup.

>>719000054
>Nope. As was noted, the cube is completely stationary. Please re-refer to the posted image.
The cube is moving looking from the 2nd inertial frame

>>718999030
Portals already alter momentum in the game.

>>718999859
What about the force to atomize and materialize the particles of the cube to the other side of the portal?

>>719000319
but A is going into the portal at speed
if A was stationary then that will be a different story

>>719000319
Why is the person moving? The cube doesn't move in the original scenario?

>>718991310 (OP)
the game already answered this question speedy thing goes in speedy thing goes out it's the velocity of the object not the portal

>>719000386
>but A is going into the portal at speed
>>719000056

>>719000297
But what force?

Why can't you faggots understand already? It's simple physics.
Just look at this webm and maybe for once you will understand.

>>718991310 (OP)
Physics in Portal work on case by case basis depending on the will of the creator, therefore it can be either A or B, whatever creates better experience at the moment.

>>719000236
No it didn't, the portal did.

>>719000297
No it isn't. Draw an image demonstrating so, otherwise off you go.

>>719000054
>>719000056
It moves. Passing through a portal where the exit and entrance are moving relative to each other will alter an objects momentum, unless we make additional assumptions. Therefore B makes less assumptions than A and should be considered the more likely explanation.

>>718991310 (OP)
At some point I got convinced that B was correct but thankfully I forgot the argument and can go back to believing A

>>719000056
What force changes the magnitude from 0 to x?

>>719000615
The same "force" that changes your direction when you enter portals of different orientations.

>>719000670
F = ma. a here is inifinite as it goes 0 to x in an infinitesimal time frame. So what is F?

>>718994067
Makes sense. My friend has no inertia from the top platform coming down but does from the bottom coming up. Going through the portal changes the trajectory but the vector is tied to my friend and gravity applies relative to the midpoint to the planet's center of mass.

>>719000538
THERE IS NO AREA BETWEEN THE PORTALS

>>718996979
>"IQ is for losers" - Stephen Hawking
then why the fuck did you make this post >>718994954 you stupid retard

>>718993020
Still B, its just the extra force (f=ma) only really applies to the mass of the half cube that went through the portal, so it will be a nerfed jump on exit. That force will still pull the rest of the cube upwards out of the entrance side.

>>718999246
this is how portal work
everytime you go thu the portal the universe speed itself up, destroy itself and recreated entire new universe but now with the portal exist in the different location

>>719000756
The same F that causes you to instantaneously reach D, despite D=ut+(1/2)(F/m)t^2, whenever you travel through a portal.

>>719000851
But what force moves the cube?

>>719000783
But there is area above the blue portal. The cube is clearly moving through that area as it emerges from the blue portal.

>>719000928
the universe golden ratio
how do you think the milky way keep spinning?

>>719000908
So the energy exerted by the piston creates the force?

Have we reached the point where afags start to furiously argue that the moving cube is not actually moving?

>>719000538
>It moves
No it doesn't. That's the equivalent of saying that a slinky dropped over on object, first at one end, then the other "moves".
It hasn't moved, it's displaced due to the effects of the portals. These are not the same thing.

>>719000851
But going through the portal is not a binary event. It happens gradually and not all at once.

>>719000386
Momentum is a vector. It has direction and magnitude. Portals alter the direction you're moving. This is an established fact. Thus, portals alter momentum, which disproves the main argument of A, that they don't and the cube which had no momentum will stay that way.

>>719000958
Why that cube? When I step through a portal do I also get that free energy?

>>719001068
What is happening here anon?

>>719001030
>>719001068
lol

>>719001093
yes but you return it back to the universe when you exit the portal

>>719000502
Afags B(tfo)

>>719001030
Prescient

>>719001119
Microcube failing to please a portal.

>>719001119
Optical illusion created by adjusting the linked points in space

>>719001145
But why that cube gets more energy?

>>719000319
>Portals already alter momentum in the game.
They don't. The characters momentum there is altered by falling at speed and gravity, portals have no impact. The portal's movement through space or lack of isn't transferring it's energy to the objects going through them.
The biggest mistake B fags make is ignore the entire rest of the universe and only consider the perspective of the two objects, so they can pretend it doesn't matter which object is actually in movement, when it actually does matter.

>>719000410
> The cube doesn't move in the original scenario?
What reference frame are you basing that claim on?

>>719001119
A cube being displaced in space.

>>719001127
>>719001176
I've been arguing that this entire thread.

>>719001179
Hey, it's average

>>719001217
cube's stand harvest energy from the inter-portal universe

>>719001239
So... A moving cube?

>>719001241
That’s a statistical trick, Shitty cubes manufactured in China/India bring the average down, for an American cube it’s way too small.

>>719001229
The reference frame the cube was sitting on.

>>719001002
I don't actually subscribe to the idea that portals "impart force" at all. You travel through one, and you simply "are" in the world beyond the exit portal with the new parameters of your position, orientation, and velocity. If they did, then doing literally ANY interaction would require infinite Force, even just moving a small distance.
Of course, portals don't do things arbitrarily. Your change in position in the world is equivalent to the positional delta of the portals. Your change in orientation in the world is equivalent to the orientational delta of the portals. And I would also say that your change in velocity is equivalent to the difference in velocity between the portals.

>>719001304
As much as I dislike the hoop analogy, in this instance it'll do.
Drop a hoop over an object, does it move?

>>719001228
If portals didn't alter the momentum of things that went through them, a fling would not be possible
Because a fling is possible, it is clear that portals alter the momentum of things that go through them

>>719001367
Newton's first law. The cube is at rest.

>>719001228
Momentum's a vector, anon. Both direction and magnitude. Swinging a ball around you attached to a rope is a prime example of you changing the momentum of an object without affecting its speed.
And portals do that if they're at different orientations.

>>719001401
This kind of logic seems like you’re just refusing to engage with portals at a conceptual level and playing rhetoric games. Yes velocity has a direction and magnitude, but portals can alter the direction without changing the magnitude. That’s just part of how they operate.

There is no difference between a portal moving down onto a cube or a cube moving up into a portal
>but one is stationary
only in relation to other things, but there's no such thing as "being stationary" or "having speed" inherently in our universe

>>719001454
Relative to what?

>>719001458
In your example do you have to impart force to the ball?

>>719001401
The portal doesn't alter the momentum at all. If it did, then the forces exerted on chell from instantly being redirected in any direction would obliterate her instantly.

>>719001002
You keep missing the point the anon is making.

Portals already show to change the momentum of whatever is passing through them. Insisting there has to be a force is pointless. The answer is either that portals can change your momentum without needing a force, or if there absolutely has to be one, it's whatever is enacted as the object passes through the portal.

>>719001537
To the floor. What is Newton's first law to you if nothing is at rest? Are you at rest now? Do you need energy to move?

>>719001381
Now that we have agreed that the cube is moving, should we assume that it will keep its momentum? Or will it suddenly stop?
To answer your question, if you had a hula hoop that had one side that moved, and the other that was still, separated by space yet linking those spaces together, then it would be a comparable situation

>>718996847
Going by the attempted tests posted ITT within the engine, I assume it requires the object to move for the portals to even work.
>stationary cube is stuck between the portals as if they were solid
>Chel is made to jump

>>719001531
>there's no such thing as "being stationary" or "having speed" inherently
Then explain how Mario can collect the "watch out for falling rocks" -star in 0.5 A presses.

>>719001572
No portals don't change momentum. Why would they?

>>719001565
Portal seems to take place in a magical land where hitting your head on the ceiling while moving at 1000 miles an hour doesn't hurt you, so perhaps this same magic that prevents injuries is at play here

>>719001512
>but portals can alter the direction without changing the magnitude.
That's because, in-game, you can ONLY create portals that have a difference in direction and position. You cannot create portals on moving panels. Ergo, you cannot create portals that have a difference in velocity.
The entire point of the hypothetical is discussing what would happen if you could.

>>719001597
Why the fuck would I care about the floor? Especially if I'm a portal?

>>719001364
Why is that one to be considered special?

There is always going to be a reference frame where the cube isn't moving. Are you arguing that the cube should be considered to never be moving in this problem? If so, how is the cube ever means to leave the exit?

>>719001454
Is it? Looks like it's moving to me, see here:
>>719001119

B fags still haven't discovered general relativity. They got stuck on special.

>>719001620
Now that you've agreed that the cube isn't moving, we can state that it has no momentum.
> if you had a hula hoop that had one side that moved
Oh, so like a slinky? Yes, it WOULD function exactly as if you dropped one end first, and then the other. In fact, there's an image demonstrating that's how it works right here >>718995949

>>718994067
Based and truthpilled

>>719001768
Because the cube is resting on the floor.

>>719001663
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY

Portals have to change the momentum of what passes through them in order to even work as a passage. You literally get the A outcome shown in >>719000319
if the momentum is unchanged.

>>719001808
You mean if you shake a camera it means the object you're filming is moving? With what energy though the object is moving?

>>719001846
I think we can both agree that the cube is very clearly moving as it comes out of the blue portal see >>719001119

>>719001965
No, see >>719001239

>>719001860
And astronauts in the ISS are sleeping in sleeping bags.
Yet the station itself moves 17,000 miles per hour around the earth.
And earth moves around the sun at 67,000 miles per hour.
And the solar system itself moves who knows what the fuck miles per hour around the center of our galaxy.
Point is, if I'm a portal, I don't give a damn about your floor. The cube could be moving at me at 5m/s, or it and the entire rest of the universe could be moving toward me at 5m/s, all that matters is that the difference between the portal and the cube is 5m/s

>>719001906
You mean the vector of the momentum in reference to some absolute coordinate? Because in reference to the cube it doesn't even change vector no matter how you throw the cube through portals.

>>719002041
Except portals in the game never have objects be "displaced in space" to resolve momentum issues. The objects momentum are always shown to have a permanent change. To the point that it's an actual technique you are taught to make use of in the games.

>>719002051
At what time does the cube starts caring about the relative frame of the other side of the portal? At t = 0? What about at t = -1? At t = time when the portal starts appearing?

>>718992948
chum's in the water

>>718998308
This is probably the most embarrassing Bfag image.

>>719002179
>Except portals in the game never have objects be "displaced in space" to resolve momentum issues.
Because there are no examples of portals being moved over objects. All we have are examples of the player, or some other mechanism, launching, throwing or moving items through them.

>The objects momentum are always shown to have a permanent change
No they do not.
>le leap
If the portals "changed" the momentum as you described, they would be obliterated.

>>719002113
>Because in reference to the cube it doesn't even change vector no matter how you throw the cube through portals.
You can't determine the motion of something using itself as the reference. Not only does that fail to give you any kind of useable information whatsoever but it's actually considered nonsense since the word relative literally means "in relation to something else".

It's literally any of reference frame that actually gives you information to the state of motion of the cube and the information you get is that the motion of the cube changed.

>>719002442
>No they do not.
See >>719001906
>If the portals "changed" the momentum as you described, they would be obliterated.
Changing of momentum only cause damage because of it moving the structure of something out of shape. Which you are able to see portals do not.

>>719002234
Ironically, you could care about both frames at the same time, and the math would check out. If a cube is moving 5m/s toward a portal, then the entire "world beyond" the portal appears to be approaching it at 5m/s. Same thing if the cube is stationary and the portal panel itself is moving toward the cube at 5m/s. At some point, you just accept your new reality that you're a vast distance away, despite never moving that far, or that your facing a new direction, despite never rotating, or that you're now moving, despite never changing your speed. Or, if you would rather, that the world around you has shifted, or rotated, or is moving. It's basically the same thing.

I thought portal thread is a thinly veiled CP thread?

>>719002468
Why not? How do you measure how fast your car is moving? By your tachometer and speedometer and you verify with GPS as a third frame of reference. Both are correct.

>>719002041
you're living in a dream world where an object that is very clearly moving isn't moving, I guess this is the level of delusion required to be a afag

>>719002442
A portal moving over stationary object and a moving object moving into a stationary portal is the same thing. What matters is what happens if an object moving into a portal where the two ends are moving relative to each other. A scene like that happens in Portal 2 and it confirmed B.

i cant believe you retards still debate this
its a videogame mechanic that breaks the laws of physics. there is no answer

I love big umas.

>>719002750
How would you feel if you didn't eat dinner last night?

>>719002690
A speedometer doesn't measure how fast a car is moving relative to itself

>>719002719
No one is the object not having force exerted on it and the other has a force being exerted on it.

Hula hoop remains undefeated

>>719002849
But yet it can and can be verified with GPS

>>719002690
You're measuring the speed at each your wheels spin (which in turn uses the car itself as the frame of reference, different to the wheels.) which is giving you an estimation of how fast it would be moving relative to the surface it would be driving on.

>>719002882
Indeed

>>718998524
Weight shouldn't matter though? The logic b operates on means the obejct will inherit the speed of the portal when they exit, regardless of the mass of the object

>>719002940
You don't seem to understand what the word "relative" means

>>719002948
Will your speedometer reading be different if you drive through a portal?

>>719002940
You can lift a car up and hit the pedal and watch as the meter completely gets the speed of the car. You can then verify with the GPS that it's getting it wrong.

By the way by even acknowledging the GPS as verification you're acknowledging that the true measurement requires a reference point to be used.

>>719003056
I already told you the speedometer is not reliably measuring the actual speed of the car by instead the speed of the wheels.

>>719003036
Since I gave the GPS example, yes I do.

>>719000213
Yes, that's how portals work
You can create infinite energy by positioning a waterwheel between two portals of different heights

>>719003073
>gets the speed of the car.
gets the speed of the car wrong*

>>719003130
But if you drive through a portal at 90 does it not mean you're driving at 90?

>>719003137
Since you seem to be labouring under the impression that a car's speedometer measures its speed relative to itself, no you don't

>>719003206
At 90 according to what? We've established that a meter telling you how fast the wheels are spinning aren't necessarily telling you the speed of the car.

>>719002442
>If the portals "changed" the momentum as you described, they would be obliterated.
See
>>719000056
>>719000319
>>719001081

>>719001663
So when you put one portal on the floor and another on the wall and jump into the floor one you actually just go straight down into the floor upon exiting?
Yes they change your fucking momentum otherwise the game doesn't work.

>>719000319
Sophistry

>>719003294
Well speed is a measure of displacement over time so 90 displacement unit an hour. That's the reference.

>>718991310 (OP)
I only clicked on this thread for the cute horse

>>719002852
The cube in the original problem is having a force exerted on it. The platform it is resting on is exerting a force on it to combat gravity.

Also the physics and logic behind portals literally do not use force as part of their behaviour. The very coding in the games use momentum and nothing else.

The answer is inbetween. Watch the full thing to understand why
https://youtu.be/IhEaw3Kuhf0?t=1136

>>719003248
Relative to where you were a moment ago but I get you. But my original point was portals don't change momentum

>>719003490
This topic is immortal. You could post naked loli cunny and people would still discuss the portals with fervor.

>>719003552
But it's at rest so whatever force exerting on it is not enough to move it. Hence Newton's first law.

Why B-uffoons insist on assuming Minkowski space when we're quite obviously dealing with wormholes is pure B-uffoonery

Why not just agree that the portals are magic sci-fi tech and that trying to make them work with contemporary physics is silly?

>>719003434
What co-ordinate system are you using to determine displacement? You do realise even that requires a point of reference? And if it's 90 then it has to be something other than the car itself.
>>719003615
And to tie into what I just said " where you were a moment ago" also requires a co-ordinate system with a point of reference other than the car.

>>719003615
Your original point is patently wrong, portals are readily observed to alter the momentum of things that go through them in game
A fling for example

>>719003703
Because their behavior is not arbitrary.

>>719003683
It being at rest is entirely down to the arbitrary reference frame being used.

A portal moving over stationary object and a moving object moving into a stationary portal is the same thing.

>>719003683
The cube is moving though, it's not at rest >>719001119

>>718993020
A wouldn't make a sound because its not going anywhere
whoever made this is retarded

here you go B fags

>>719003703
I think it's interesting to think about how they could work
They have to have infinite mass, for example, but they don't cause any gravitational force around them
Fascinating

>>718994954
>150+:
>>It's B because that would be more fun in a video game and allow the devs to construct new types of puzzles

It's literally A in the videogame, dumbass

>>718991310 (OP)
B world is more fun than A world.
>b-but muh hula hoops
If I could drop a hula hoop from overhead and launch myself in the air, that would be the coolest shit

>pick any point on the cube
>watch that point as it emerges from the blue portal
>see that its position changes over time
>ergo it is moving and has a velocity
>same applies to all points
>no reason for them to suddenly stop, so the cube flings
>it's B

It's really that easy. Why do Afags overcomplicate everything?

>>719004121
Because of engine limitations sub-90let.

Prima stands on the platform, next to the cube. Above, the portal moves towards her, along with all objects on the other side of the portal. Below, the platform is stationary.
Secunda stands below the platform, looking at the cube and Prima. These appear to be stationary, while the portal and objects on the other side of it appear to be moving down towards them.
Tertia stands on the "blue" side of the portal, observing it. Prima, the cube, Secunda, and all other objects on the "orange" side of the portal appear to be moving towards her, while the portal appears to be stationary.

The piston pushes downwards, slams into the platform, and stops.
In A:
From Prima's perspective, the platform, Secunda, the cube, etc. remain motionless and the portal/blue-side objects that were just moving have stopped. To Secunda, the same, but with the context to see the piston stopped as well.. To Tertia, Everything that was moving has come to a sudden stop.

In B:
To Prima, the objects moving towards her continue moving, the ground beneath her begins moving away, and the cube remains motionless with her. To Secunda, the objects on the blue side stop moving when the piston stops and Prima+cube instead rocket skywards. To Tertia, the orange-side objects stop moving, Prima+cube keep moving, and Secunda, despite being equally untethered to the "moving" platform as Prima, stops hard along with the platform above her.

>>719004121
Sub-90 confirmed.

A doesn't even have a rule since the belief that portals conserve momentum just results in the A outcome in >>719000319

velocity relative to entrance when entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit when exiting (including relative direction) is the rule portals follow in the game and that's what B follows.

>>719004230
No don't even give him that.

Engine limitations literally don't allow the cube to go through a portal when the portals are allowed to move reletive to each other in the game code.

>>719003858
No. You mean the vector of objects relative to an observer. Not the momentum of the object itself. The object itself will always move forward since there was no other force present changing it's direction.

>>719003931
See >>719001951

>>719004540
"the momentum of the object itself" is literally always going to be a relative to something. What you're trying to insist on is judging its motion relative to itself which is literally an oxymoron.

>The object itself will always move forward
That's literally the motion the object DOESN'T have if you insist on using itself as the point of reference.

>>719004540
Momentum is a vector property, so a change in direction is by definition a change in momentum.
That said, the speed component of velocity, and by extension momentum, does not change, only the direction it's going in.

>>719004754
So what moves absolute forward? What force do you need to move absolute forward? Or was Newton wrong nothing is at rest ever?

>>718991310 (OP)
The ability to reconcile the fact that the box comes out of the portal Rapidly without actually imparting any Velocity which is what you expect to happen is the sign of high intelligence.

>>719005035
So the cube was at rest and remains at rest. Gotcha. Newton's first law is preserved

>>719005254
See >>719001951

>>719005301
This really is a question of who got past middle school elementary physics, isn't it? Like nothing is stopping you from understanding relative motion if you wanted to.

>>719004336
>A doesn't even have a rule since the belief that portals conserve momentum just results in the A outcome in >>719000319

You literally fail to grasp that that example is inline with both A and the actual game physics

Fucking idiot lol

momentum is conserved when passing through portals

the cube wasn't moving at all, so it just plops gently on the other side
im not even sure why people keep arguing about this after 10 years, american education?

>>719005507
Do you understand object at rest? Do you understand you need force to move an object at rest?

>>719004221
It has no velocity and is only moving from your smooth brain perspective. The universe does not revolve around a stupid ape on a Mongolian trans subreddit. use your tiny little brain for a second and try your hardest to evolve so you can imagine yourself as the cube. Now why would you suddenly gane velocity?

>>719005707
Because a portal moved over me and I flew out of it

>>719005669
Relative to what?

>>719006024
Relative to how there's no energy moving its molecules over a displacement

>>719000837
>through the portal
you dont understand portals from the game portal
if you walk through a portal you walk the same as you do when not walking through a portal
and can even stand between portals
so why would a portal passing over you impart ANYTHING on you at all
why would you move or be disrupted in any way?

>>719005669
Do you understand that literally nothing is truly at rest? The Earth is spinning at 1,670 km/hr at the equator, orbiting the sun at 107,208 km/hr, with the sun orbiting the centre of the galaxy at 828,000 km/hr, with the galaxy moving through space at 2,100,000 km/hr. Everything is relative, and in this question that important part is the speed of the cube relative to the entrance of the portal.

>>719006334
So I'm always moving. Do I need more energy to stand up or less energy?

>>719006482
Are you standing up on your own, or are you being forced up by a magical device that breaks real-world physics?

>>718994067
finally someone gets it

>>718996008
The cube insists upon itself

>>719006564
What if I stand on my own? Do I consume energy?

>>719001951
Correct. The object I'm filming is spinning around the earth's center, orbiting the sun and moving relative to the camera, all at the same time.

>>719006782
If you stand on your own then you're not abiding by the conditions of the thought experiment, and are therefore irrelevant.

>>718993167
Are you trolling?
Portals are a static opening even if they're seemingly moving on the object they're projected onto, the only thing that will have momentum are objects that are already moving when they go through.
Why do gamers struggle with this concept so much?

>>719006821
So all your mumbo jumbo about relativity and frame of reference only applies to this specific case? No object is at rest only in this case?

>>719006790
You're really fast bro.

>>719005074
>So what moves absolute forward?
Nothing. There's no such thing as absolute forward as far as physics is concerned. All motion is relative.

>>719007041
>relativity is mumbo jumbo
Really proving my original point there pal

>>719005519
Anon... the example in that pic which is inline with the game is the example marked "B".

It's marked "B" because that's what happens when you actually follow B's logic of the momentum changing and not being conserved like people arguing for A insist.

please don't bully Agnes

>>719005543
>momentum is conserved when passing through portals
No it isn't
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASUUN0W4_JY

See the A outcome in >>719000319 for what happens if momentum is conserved (the dude is still moving downwards on exiting the portal).

>>719007175
Still no force moving the cube from rest

>>719007306
>my wife is an Afag
:(

>>719007423
yes it is

>>719004221
>still undefeated

>>719007820
Momentum is a vector quantity, even changing the direction of the vector means changing momentum. I even linked you an actual physics professor telling you this.

>>719007881
But what if you as the viewer move around the cube 180 degrees. Does that mean you changed the cube's momentum?

>>719007964
Within your reference frame yes. However your reference frame would be acknowledged to be non-inertial so it would be recognised that it isn't an actual force changing the cube's momentum.

>>719007881
Approaching it this way is retarded it has you operating from the perspective that whatever is going through the portal experiences infinite acceleration

>>719008238
Attempting the argue that the momentum of the object, now moving in a completely different direction within the same frame of reference, somehow possesses the same momentum as before is far far far more retarded.

>>719007881
nuh huh

>>719008376
Ok so we have
>it’s not real movement, space is manipulated and it changes the outcome of the objects initial motion
Vs.
>everything just experiences infinity acceleration to reach its new speed

There's a case to be made for A but I think that kind of geometry would break physics in worse ways than simply treating them like teleportation devices.
B is the quick patch solution, portals can't exist so their velocity is transfered to the object.

>>719008109
But the cube is moving in the opposite direction

>>718994067
If you wanna go by how it would work in the games, the devs said it would be B, since that has puzzle solving application whereas A does not.

>>719008832
>it’s not real movement
But it demonstrably is. An object that's undergone a portal fling is to all intents and purposes shown to be behaving under a new momentum. At no point is it revealed the new momentum is fake in any way. Even if you close the portal afterwards the objects sticks with its new state of motion.

At best you could say "it's not a real change but it does act identical to one". Thing is the cube acting identical to B's outcome would still mean B is right.

>everything just experiences infinity acceleration to reach its new speed
Just saying the motion changed is the "calling a spade a spade" approach here. You're already working with a sci-fi premise where portals let things change their position, why was portals letting things change their motion such a hang up?

>>718992335
no thats a fags

>>718994067
>>b-but in real life the frame of refer-
>Shut the fuck up. Portals don't exist in real life
People who argue B point out it's B in portal canon. It's already acknowledged that portals don't exist in real life. You clearly don't have enough experience with this topic if your assumption was that the B response would be to focus on real life.

" if moving portals were coded properly " is such weasel argument. You've acknowledged it's not coded properly and yet you just assume that if it was it would be coded to agree with you.

There are three criteria that you would go with when "coding it properly".

>what's already canon (there's literally a scene in portal 2 going with B's logic)
>what works and doesn't result in weird inconsistences
>what's more fun
For all three the answer is B.

>>719010987
What scene shows B logic?

>>719011147
Ok I'll tell you but anyone with experience with this topic should already know what I'm going to say.

The portal 2 moon scene was B happening. No, don't do the retarded thing and get confused thinking the air pressure was the only thing that happened in that scene. The air pressure happened. That's the 10 m/s you see in this when Chell is still at earth. But what also happened was Chell's motion changing to have the Moon's 2200 m/s orbiting speed.

No, don't also be an idiot and insist the person should have been torn apart due to that motion change. Portals already show to enact massive changes in motion without it causing damage. It's a pointless hang up because you're not disproving that Chell's motion changed, we literally know she did because we know the moon moves in orbit in portal canon.

>>719010261
Ok you’re dragging it into an argument of rhetoric lol we’re talking about along the 2d plane of the portal there isn’t acceleration happening, it’s a change in velocity direction but not the magnitude of the speed

>>719011614
Yea I agree. It's pretty clear from the moon scene that B is the correct answer. Why do a fags even argue?

>>718994968
i cant refute this

>>719011896
Whether velocity changes by direction or magnitude is entirely down to what reference frame you are using. If you're looking at the reference frame where the portals are stationary the velocity will only change by direction.

But in the A or B problem that reference frame doesn't exist.

>>719011614
Just to fend off any pedants, you should include the 10mph speed in B too. It doesn't disappear.

>>719012367
You are not even engaging with what I said

>>719012607
I address your comment about velocity change allegedly being only in direction instead of magnitude.

You shouldn't have a hang up over the idea of something going from being stationary to moving if you're accepting something changing in travel direction. If something has changed travel direction that means there is a reference frame where it has gone from being stationary to being in motion.

Portals DO NOT impart force, chud. If it's not moving then it's not moving.

>>719012891
No I know you don’t get it because you’re talking about reference frames and they don’t matter here. With a portal, objects experience changes in velocity without accelerating to their new speeds. This is because only the orientation changes.

>>718993020
>>718994067
This is one hundred percent accurate. It is A every time, because even if you try to apply real-world physics onto the game, the portal itself is frictionless, has no mass, and cannot be acted upon by any physics-based forces. The platform is moving at velocity, but the portal doesn't inherit this at all. And because the cube only touches the portal, none of the momentum or force from the top platform is transferred.

tl;dr anyone who says B is a brainlet.

>>719011614
Going out of a portal on a moving thing is not the same as portal on a moving thing going on the unmoving thing.

Low IQ: A fags
Mid IQ: B fags
High IQ: A fags

>>719013270
A change in motion even only by direction is still considered acceleration. Physics defines acceleration as ANY kind of change in velocity.

>This is because only the orientation changes.
Again only in a single reference frame. You saying reference frames don't matter doesn't mean it's true. It's going to be an obvious problem if you're claiming something can't go from 0 to being in motion via going through a portal if there literally exists a frame of reference where that has happened.

>>719013665
The moon scene demonstrates the logic that B follows:

>velocity relative to entrance when entering (including relative direction) = velocity relative to exit when exiting (including relative direction)

>>719001081
>portals alter momentum
No, no they do not. If you're going to try to argue and make yourself smart, at least do the modicum of research necessary to understand how portals actually work. They don't exert any forces on objects that pass through them.

>>719013975
You are so dumb lol
The object still accelerates instantly even if you zoom out to a reference frame looking at the Earth and consider it in motion already

kill /sci/niggers
it's been two decades already get over it

>>719014305
nta but he's right that momentum is a vector. Portals change the direction something is travelling, which changes its velocity (also a vector) which changes its momentum. What it doesn't change is an object's SPEED, which is directionless. Velocity is not the same as speed. Portals take that speed and apply it to a different direction.

I still kind of belive that b fags are all just trolling and don't geniunly belive its b. I know better, buts its still hard to belive

>>719013684
I have never seen A fags broach relative distance between portals as a source of universal reference point, or an A fag broach the topic that would be argued around lorentz transformation

It is always hula hoops, true speed, and "stop bringing up irrelevant other scenarios"

>>719014495
How do you measure an object's speed?
Take your time to write out your answer and then read the next part:
How do you measure an object's speed in space? What would you put it relative to?

The qestion doesn't work till you can prove portals exist.
Both answers are absurd but there are many questions you can ask that will get those that answer A.'s gears moving.

Here's a question for A.fags, if you placed something in front of the exit portal, and the piston, with the entrance portal slams around the object in question at the speed of sound (I choose that speed somewhat arbitrarilly but because the faster it is the more easilly it illustrated the point) would it not act upon what's placed in front of it any different than an object that is moving at that speed hitting it, then knocking it out of the way? What then, stops the object's atoms from acting upon the object itself?
Here's another question. A.fags will use the hulahoop analogy. Lets grant their logic, because the piston is what is moving and the object is still, it wouldn't continue moving, right? It's like the room moves around the object rather than it moved into the the room, right? Well, I would ask, if the room moved around the object, would the stopping of the piston, as it slammed, even matter with regard to the object's movement when the stopping happens when it is fully on the other end of the portal, and would it not therefore continue movement?

It's sort of a dumb question and ass backwards by the fact of the assertions of the existence of portals. I think ultimately the portal question concerns something so vast it may be beyond human comprehension, because you need an ultimate frame of refference, but portals might contradics it's possibility.

>>719015031
Say a or b or fuck off

>>719014932
Since the object and the entrance portal are both presumably on the same planetary body, the speed that matters with regard to the question is their speed relative to each other.

>>719015085
LOL, no.

>>719014873
What force?

B fags can't refute the hula hoops.
It doesn't matter how the portals are moving.
The portals function like wormholes.
In a room of the same atmosphere no less. The answer is A.

>>719014873
>universal reference point
Relative to the universal reference point, the cube was at rest.

>>719015237
In a hula hoop both the entrance and exit move in unison, in the portal problem they don't.

>>718995223
Such a lengthy explanation just to implicitly admit that you are an idiot.

>>719015031
That's more like the case of a car hitting a wall. Of course the stationary wall will hit the car's insides.

>>719015184
No force needed as evidenced in the games.

>>719014873
The truth is that portals actually do enforce an absolute reference frame, but it's the Portals' own frame, which results in B. Momentum is preserved through portals, but only relative to the portal frame, in other frames Momentum can be fucked with freely. Everything you do in game fucks about with momentum (specifically the directional portion of momentum) in every frame except the portals'.

>>719015031
>Lets grant their logic, because the piston is what is moving and the object is still, it wouldn't continue moving, right? It's like the room moves around the object rather than it moved into the the room, right?
Let me rephrase. If the room is moving around the object, is there any reason it would stop moving around the object, if the stopping of the piston is irrelivant to the object passing through by the fact of the object not being on that side by the time it's stopped? This is a question, not a suggestion of what I think would happen.

>>719015031
It would not continue forward because the piston has stopped.

>>719015509
Newton's first law.

>>719015643
Portals break it, anything else?

>>718994067
Finally, I can be at peace and my soul can move on.

>>719015719
Regardless of mass?

>>719014337
>The object still accelerates instantly
That's wasn't something I was trying to dispute. You're the one that supposedly has a problem with something that accelerates instantly due to a sci-fi concept.

>>719015776
Yes.

>>719015331
But being that portals function like wormholes, how they move is irrelevant.

>>719015950
They don't however.

>>719015643
It really is hilarious how often Afags quote whatever they remember from middle school as if that's the sum total of all human knowledge.

>>719015584
How does the piston stopping affect the cube once it's on the other side of the portal?
How does it affect other objects nearby? How does it distinguish them from the cube?
Would the cube at some point, after staying in the other side of the portal for a while, stop being affected by the piston?

>>719015584
That doesn't work. >>719015573
That has no baring on the matter, and if it did, then those that would answer A. would LITERALLY BE SAYING that if the object were on a pedastal, it would be launched, then the question becomes, what would it launch then if no launch would happen otherwise? Why should the logic of what's beyond the portal on the entrance end apply fully beyond the exit side? I know why it would, it's obvious, it's the same room, but then, if that's the case how does the A. fag reconcile the room being as still as the object and yet, on the other end that still room is around a moving object? This is where the problem comes and this is why I make a distinction between the logic of one side and the logic of the other.
This perhaps goes back to a refutation of the premise of the existence of portals which would probably need to be proven or at least argued for in some fashion to even have a sensible premise.

>>718999094
>felatious

>>719015950
As soon as anything moves through a portal it emerges from the exit portal, for this to work in concept the object has to emerge with the same speed relative to the exit portal it had relative to the entrance portal.

>>719006325
Because if you're not moving out of the exit, you'd just materialise in the same spot layer by layer.

But the entire discussion hinges on a paradox created by moving portals.

How do Afags answer this one? What happens to the door?

>>719007175
I mean he's right though. Relativity is gay (and therefore must be fake).

>>719014083
Just because the exit portal normalizes your speed with reference to itself does not mean the entry portal transfers its relative speed to you.

>>719016342
It opens the door, but neither the ram or door will have speedy.

>>719016080
And like it's some gotcha that Bfags didn't know about or take into account.
>"Hey, stupid Bfag! You made this argument and an elaborate animation showcasing it, but I bet you didn't know about this high school physics concept!! What do you have to say now?"

>>719016401
>Just because the exit portal normalizes your speed with reference to itself does not mean the entry portal transfers its relative speed to you.
Read what you just said and try to make sense of it. How is "normalizing" inequivalent to "transferring"?

>>719016425
If the ram has no force (a factor of speed and mass) then how does the ram break the door?
The ram must have force to break the door, but the orange portal platform wouldn't stop for no reason.

I wonder if Afags think that treadmills don't burn calories or something.

>>719016219
>layer by layer.
why do Btards keep saying this line?
it literally doesnt make sense.
what the fuck are you talking about?

>>719016467
>exit portal
>entry portal

>>719016627
Objects are made out of atoms, anon.

>>719011614
Without entering the unresolvable argument, what happens with Chell's momentum from spinning with Earth?

>>719016523
non-speedy displacement

>>718994067
>box moves out of portal
>carries no momentum
>movement with no momentum

>>719016342
The problem of the question is the seeming absurdity of the premise
>reality can crash into itself
Yet, the A.fag, will apply reasoning coherent with that being impossible in a premise which violates that reasoning. For the longest time I would argue B. because it adresses the problems presented by the senselessness of A. but at least tries to work with it, but the reality of it is, there are more answers to the question than A. or B.
It's an interesting question but hardly any thought comes of it. I don't think people are wrapping their heads around the problem well enough.

>>719016701
But what of the platonic ideal of the cube?

>>719016764
The box doesn't have speedy

>>718998506
>fictional technology
>educated in real life technology respond
Frauds, all of them both A and B.

>>719016425
How can the door open without movement?

>>719016627
Look at >>719012945
Either each rung of the ladder moves out of the way for the next rung of the ladder, or they all materialize on top of each other and telefrag into a compressed ladder. You can visualise this at an atomic or molecular level, or in 1cm slices of cube, or however else you like. The point is that every individual piece of the object that emerges from the portal must be moving.

>>719016858
Plato can't ball

>>719016627
A 1m stick is halfway throgh the portal. Your butt is at the exit touching the stick. The other portal continues to move down the stick. Are you
>Save cause the stick can't gain any velocity to go up your ass
>Fucked cause the stick has to go somewhere and the only way is up your ass

>>719016210
This. The box is moving FROM a portal and therefore has momentum. What is happening in the other side is irrelevant to know the answer, A or B.

>>719017034
Ram gives it speedy.

>>719016725
According to B, it's zero relative to the entrance portal.
According to A, it's like a hulahoop.

>>719017121
The most committed Afags will answer that actually you are falling on the stick, oblivious of all the other problems this creates.

>>719013665
From the reference frame of an observer on the surface of the Moon, it's a nearly-equivalent scenario.

>>719016986
Yes it does. It's moving through space. That is speedy. Unless you're considering intersecting atoms in space in which case the answer is C, huge fireball and destruction of everything in the immediate area.

>>719017329
It has no speedy so it stops once the piston is no longer displacing it.

>>719017581
Displacement is pushing. Pushing is movement. Movement is speedy.
Otherwise every layer of atoms that passes through the portal line appears in the same place as the previous line of atoms. Them boom.
The atoms need to move out of the way to come through in the same order they went in. They need. To move, at speed. That's momentum.

Are B fags all just pretending to be this retarded?

>>719018128
This post has speedy.

>>719018029
I'm just shitposting after arguing with Atards for the whole thread

>>718994067
I miss making stickman animations in flash

Check out my hula hoop, fags.
Can't refute that.

>>719018267
Fair enough.

With that, I think we can all end this buffoonery, and agree it's clearly A.

>>719017279
It's B direction, but A speed. Unless it's a continuous object, then it's protected by Aperture Science Object Consistency Field that keeps shit from breaking apart from suddenly being in two different systems of movement.

>>718994067
This is correct, but just to nitpick, in the case of the box's platform pushing up, that box would have less momentum.
B fags don't understand the intended properties of the game.

Guys, look. It's B!

>>719019240
A